Comments on: What Should We Do?

By: Darrell Prince

Darrell Prince — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:14:16 +0000

Thank god; someone smashed that. Those blatantly wrong comments plucked straight from fox headlines.Medicare and Social Security are NOT the problems, and they are paid into insurance… changing the bargain or not keeping it the same way is borderline FRAUD, something you prefer your government to stay out of. *
So since we have now cleared that conversation, we can get back to how to fix things.
Conservation now.
Less you use, less you spend.
Less is more, especially with energy.
Money put in now pays off for years.

*There are some efficiencies to be gained, by using surpluses to invest in homes seniors can have their choice of, and can be operated at a very low cost with a community pot. Hopefully most folks can get support from their families, and are stable with or without.

By: Arline Mathews

Arline Mathews — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:35:18 +0000

It is imperative that we invest in our own people, whether it be burying power lines, shoring up bridges and making the dams and roads and levees safer, or all of the above, this investment in jobs and ultimate consumerism is essential if we are to remain a power to be reckoned with.

Our country depends on our ability to have consumer buying power and a strong and growing middle class. Through investing in education, teaching job skills, and building homes and streets to get to work from suburbia we became a world power. THE G.I.BILL DID THAT FOR US AFTER WW2.

By: Arline Mathews

Arline Mathews — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:48 +0000

The statistics say otherwise. Neither Social Security or Medicare are bankrupt. This is false propaganda from those who have been out to destroy Soc. Sec. since the Roosevelt Administration.

The Soc. Sec. Adm. has enough cash on hand to fund it for the next 30 years. The fear has to do with the fact that the baby boomers are getting toward retirement age.

If the money that the Republicans borrowed from it that would totally answer any future problem.

The reason Soc.Sec. is called an “entitlement” is because this was required insurance that would keep you from abject poverty in old age. You paid all of your premiums into the insurance program all of your working years and depending upon how much you invested of your money that was the benefit you would receive ay age 65.

If a private insurer made a deal with you, drew up a contract or policy, and then changed the terms on you by saying – no you can’t receive your benefits until a later age because the insurer says they are having tough times. It would be called FRAUD and you would have a really good law suit against them in which they could pay punitive or punishment damages.

By: Joe Marinaro

Joe Marinaro — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:05:27 +0000

You’re forgetting the biggest repair … simply repaving roads and highways. Problems with doing those nuts and bolts works is that a politician can’t well attach his or her name to a basic repaving project – “The Chuck Schumer Repaved Rt. 25″?? Don’t think so.

By: Joe Marinaro

Joe Marinaro — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:01:47 +0000

Social Security and Medicare are already effectively bankrupt. You now want to stop all funding contributions. Curious as to how that would impact:

1. Deficit and debt levels.
2. Future health of those programs
3. With less contributions how would individual future payouts be impacted?

No, we have to maintain or even increase contributions. Instead, reduce the lowest marginal tax rate to put money into the taxpaying public’s hands.

By: Misaki

Misaki — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:24:27 +0000

Great, you created 1 million jobs but unemployment is still at 7.5% because of people re-entering the work force. But it was a good start for day one of a month-long reign!

By: davesnyd

davesnyd — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 18:20:05 +0000

OK; but as much as your readers might wish it, you won’t be king for a day. Or President, either. Or FED chief.

On your list, there’s only one thing President can do unilaterally– the FHFA stuff.

Does that mean that the test of how serious he is about job growth (and reelection) is whether he moves on that?

What’s not on your list– that Paul K discusses frequently– is the FED setting an expectation that inflation should and will be at the 4% level. His claim is that will push companies to invest their hordes. So that’s another (almost unilateral by Ben B.) step that *could* be taken.

Other than that, I think we’re left with the President campaigning against a do-nothing Congress. Best case, he wins and has two houses. More likely case, he might win and have one.

In neither case do I see a likely improvement in the governing climate.

By: Stephen R Langenthal

Stephen R Langenthal — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 00:24:58 +0000

I’m not sure where the 6 billion figure comes from. In Concord, Massachusetts they do it for about $600,000 per mile and the figure thrown out by most utilities is $1,000,000 per mile.
The work would create jobs, stimulate manufacturing, improve dependability and security and improve the visual environment.
In addition, the undergrounding does not have to be done all at once. it could be done gradually.
Power Underground, Inc., has arranged with MIT to study undergrounding and come up with solid numbers on job creation,manufacturing stimulation and the rest.

By: masaccio

masaccio — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:36:19 +0000

This isn’t going to happen. You know it and I know it. We are well and truly screwed.

Too bad we didn’t prosecute banksters. That would have restored my confidence.

By: Sandwichman

Sandwichman — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:17:26 +0000

For some insight into one of the big obstacles to implementing Dean Baker’s proposed solution, see my open letters to Jonathan Portes on “Kickstarting the Recovery.” The title comes from a Trades Union Congress panel debate last week that featured Dean and Jonathan Portes, among others. Many of the ‘Big Shot’, supposedly Keynesian economists, such as Paul Krugman, Richard Layard and Jonathan Portes (who was a top economic adviser to Labour governments in the U.K.) cling to a “lump-of-labor fallacy” dismissal of the employment potential of reducing work hours that is directly contrary to Keynes’s own, explicitly-stated view.

http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2012/06/kick-starting-recovery-open-letter-to.html

http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2012/07/kick-starting-recovery-open-letter-to.html